4.  The first applicant, Terem Ltd, is a Ukrainian company registered in 1998. The second applicant, Mr Igor Vladimirovich Chechetkin is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Kiev. The third applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Vitalyevich Olius, is also a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Kiev. The second and third applicants are co-owners of the first applicant.
5.  In November 1999 the property and financial documents belonging to the first applicant were seized by the tax police during a control of the company’s compliance with tax regulations.
6.  On 10 February 2000 a major part of the first applicant’s property was declared to be “without an owner” by the Kiev Tax Police Department (hereinafter – “the KTPD”). On 3 March 2000 the Zhovtnevyy District State Administration decided to sell the property, which it then did.
7.  In May 2000 the second and third applicants lodged a complaint with the Radyanskiy District Court of Kiev against the KTPD for its allegedly unlawful actions with respect to the first applicant.
8.  On 10 October 2000 the court found for the applicants.
9.  On 7 February 2001 the Kiev City Court quashed the decision of the first-instance court and terminated the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, having established that the proper claimant in the case was the first applicant, which meant that the claim had to be considered by the commercial courts.
10.  In March 2002 the first applicant, represented by the other two, filed a claim with the Kiev Commercial Court against the KTPD and the State Treasury, seeking compensation for material and moral damage caused by the actions of the tax police.
11.  On 6 June 2003 the court found in part for the first applicant and awarded it UAH 5,655,475.40 in compensation for material and non-material damage and UAH 4,002.60 for the court fees[1]. In its decision the court established the unlawfulness of the actions of the KTPD and the resulting damage caused to the first applicant.
12.  On 6 October 2003 the Kiev Appellate Commercial Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
13.  On 22 October 2003 the Kiev Commercial Court issued two writs of execution for the amounts awarded in the decision of 6 June 2003.
14.  On 10 December 2003 the Shevchenkivskiy District Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings in the case.
15.  On 17 January 2004 the State Treasury informed the Bailiffs’ Service that, pursuant to domestic law, it was for the Treasury to enforce the judgment, not the Bailiffs’ Service.
16.  On 23 February 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writs of execution to the first applicant and proposed that it submit them to the State Treasury for enforcement.
17.  On 25 February 2004 the first applicant forwarded the writs of execution to the State Treasury.
18.  On 5 April 2004 the Highest Commercial Court of Ukraine upheld the decisions of the lower courts of 6 June and 6 October 2003.
19.  On 1 July 2004 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the request of the KTPD for a review of the decision of 5 April 2004 in cassation.
20.  By letter of 22 July 2004, the Kiev Department of the State Treasury informed the applicants that the decision of 6 June 2003 could not be enforced in the absence of legal grounds. In particular, it noted that the reimbursement of the value of the property confiscated by the State was limited to the sum obtained from the sale of the property, a matter to be confirmed by the tax authorities.
21.  On 5 August 2004 the Kiev Commercial Court rejected the request of the KTPD to suspend the enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2003.
22.  On 9 September 2004 the judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a further request of the KTPD for a review of the decision of 5 April 2004, on the ground that the Supreme Court had rejected this request in its final decision of 1 July 2004.
23.  On 20 December 2004 the State Treasury transferred UAH 356,973.55[2] to the bank account of the first applicant.
24.  By letter of 16 February 2005, the Kiev Department of the State Treasury informed the first applicant that the Treasury had transferred to it the amount obtained from the sale of the confiscated property. Further enforcement, however, could not be conducted due to the lack of appropriate allocations in the State Budget of Ukraine for the years 2004 and 2005.
25.  The judgment in favour of the first applicant remains to large extent unenforced.